His goal is to personally “explain the Disney situation” and try to dispel four myths he says politicans are being “fed from the tech
giants.”

Bless his heart for his diplomacy, but I'm more inclined to believe that our congress critters know exactly what is going on, and it would be more
accurate to say that too many congress critters are feeding these myths to we the people as they sell us out.

On the plus side, certainly not all our congress critters. Of the above three named critters, Senator (and presidential hopeful) Ted Cruz is the only
one who doesn't see a problem with these H1B visas... and the displacement of American workers with foreign workers. In fact:

...Cruz is an H-1B proponent who has worked to dramatically expand the program in the past.

The H1B visa basically allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations, for which qualified American workers
cannot be found, at a much lower wage. And, surprise surprise, reports of abuse are rampant.

Myth: Disney is an anomaly. “This exact same situation is happening all over our state and country with most of the large Fortune 500
companies,” the laid-off worker said in an email to TheDCNF.

Myth: The laid-off workers aren’t as qualified for the job. “I hold numerous technical certifications and received the highest possible job
performance rating while with Disney,” he added.

Myth: Disney creates other jobs the laid-off workers can apply for. “Disney job postings did not really exist,” he added. “Out of the several
hundred IT workers displaced, only three received a new IT job.”

Myth: There is a dire shortage of skilled American tech workers. “IT salaries have steadily decreased due to a low demand of U.S. IT workers,” he
said. “And many IT jobs that do still exist in this country require that U.S. IT workers have the ability to work well with foreign offshore and
onshore groups.”

A few of the U.S. companies that have replaced workers with these foreign workers (often after the American workers trained their replacement,
so the replaced workers obviously had the necessary training and competence to do the job themselves): Microsoft ~~ Intel ~~ Toys'R'Us ~~ So Cal
Edison ~~ Disney ~~ SunTrust Bank ~~ Google ~~ AT&T.

Sometimes the U.S. company does not hire the H1B workers directly; rather, the company contracts with a "consulting" or "management" firm who hires
the H1B workers for the U.S. Company. From
NPR:

The biggest users of H-1Bs are consulting companies, or as Ron Hira calls them, "offshore-outsourcing firms."

"The top 10 recipients in [the] last fiscal year were all offshore-outsourcers. And they got 40,000 of the 85,000 visas — which is astonishing," he
says.

The biggest user of H-1B last year was Cognizant, a firm based in New Jersey. The company got 9,000 new visas. Following close behind were
Infosys, Wipro and Tata ‑‑ all Indian firms.

The really really sad part is that this isn't new information, or a new practice, as the Congressional hearing held in 2004 tells us, including
the prepared statement of Michal Emmons. Mr. Emmons testified
to the following companies which had replaced American workers with foreign workers:

Mr. Emmons also testifies about L visas, another means by which U.S. companies replace skilled American workers with low-paid foreign workers:

On March 10, 2003, because I contacted them, Business Week reported that half of Tata Consulting 5,000 workers are L–1 visa holders. ''What's
more, L–1s allow employees to remain in the U.S. for up to seven years and can include multiple workers; H–1Bs are issued to individuals, who are
limited to six-year stays. There were 384,000 people working in the U.S. on H–1Bs in 2001, the last year available, and at 329,000, nearly as many
on L–1s. In more recent news reports Tata will not disclose the quantity of L–1 workers they use.

I'm inclined to agree with this blogger who explains why he believes the H-1B
visa program is deliberately over complicated and designed to allow companies to replace Americans with much cheaper foreign labor, with minimal
regulatory oversight and minimal enforcement.. We obviously need serious reform of the H1B and L-Visa programs -- reform that protects the American
worker and the greatest good of the American people... and for the same reason, we need serious reform of our incorporation laws to protect the rights
of the people and promote the greatest good of the people.

So ATS: How would you reform the foreign workers program? And what would be your guiding principles so to speak?

I've got news for you - Both sides of the aisle support this even if they do so for slightly different reasons.

Any congressman who has big business in his or her back pocket wants it for their patrons. Any congressman or woman who supports immigration reform
wants this to fundamentally and radically transform the voting landscape of this country. Any congressman who backs big labor wants this. Any
congressman who backs business in general wants this depress the wage ceiling.

The "Owners of Capital" want wage slaves DEAD before turning 60. Best case scenario for them, is for someone to work 60+ hour work weeks from ages
16-60, put all of their money into a 401K, cars & home mortgage, neglecting to go to the doctor for decades and then suddenly drop dead of a heart
attack; all before they can drain their 401K's and start using earned social security & medicare benefits.

Due to the way our current economic system works, we CLEARLY have too many people being born and not enough desire on the behalf of the "owners of
capital" to employ them for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization. In the United States, for example, its clear that the "owners of
capital" have chosen NOT to employ people on a large scale, preferring "tent cities" and "jailing the homeless", INSTEAD of providing more "make-work
employment" arrangements.

Up to the 1940 a person could get just about any job with an 8th grade education, but today you need a BA or Masters for entry level. Why?

Because the government & big business figured out a long time ago that populations would certainly increase over time, but due to technology
advancements, the availability of jobs would not expand to meet that population growth. There is a DEFINITE reason they don’t want people dropping
out of high school and then at the same time, encourage those same high school graduates to attend junior college, then a 4 year university and
finally a Masters degree or PhD. Government strong-arms this concept because it DECREASES the amount of people looking for full-time employment at the
SAME TIME, chasing after jobs in a market that CANNOT provide employment for everyone whom is looking, able to perform, qualified for and willing to
work.

Look at it this way, when people could get a job with an 8th grade education, they went out and did it as soon as possible (opportunity cost). Then
jobs got scarcer and the minimum requirement became a high school diploma, adding 4 more years of people NOT Looking for jobs within their cohort.
Then jobs got even scarcer and the minimum became a 2 or 4 year college degree, adding an additional 2-4 years of people NOT looking for jobs within
their cohort. Now jobs are really scarce and may require a Masters or PHD, adding an additional 2-7 years of people NOT looking for jobs within their
cohort. Basically due to the way the economy has been structured TODAY, we are looking at young people within their cohort whom are NOT looking for
full-time, career type, employment for 4-15 YEARS, beyond K-12, all while they finish more school!

This has been done ON PURPOSE, to keep the number people seeking employment lower. In 1920 after 8th grade everyone who was able, went out to look for
work and typically found it. That’s simply NOT possible today under any circumstances. Easily accessed welfare will soon add another 1-3 years of
people within a cohort, to those “not seeking employment”. Note this will NOT be to the specific detriment of society, but as a means to continue
to mask the illusion that jobs and upward mobility are still available. So, if someone gets a graduate degree and collects 1-3 years of welfare on top
of than, that’s ONE less person competing for scarce jobs. The extra years of welfare are then acting in the same way to the larger economy, as the
previously increased minimum education levels for employment. The real goal is decreasing the number of able-bodied applicants out on the job market
at the same time, but also not decreasing the supply of "potential workers" who's mere existence drive wages down for EVERYBODY. Keep in mind this
cohort of people "not pursuing full-time employment" also includes those in Prison, Government pensioners/SSI and the disabled on government
assistance. The reality is if everyone needed to go out and “get a job” or “start their own business” TODAY, as many “capitalists” and
"entrepreneurs" suggest these days, we would ALL be making 0.25 cents a day. THIS RACE TO THE BOTTOM EFFECTS THE SELF EMPLOYED WAGES AS WELL.

The “owners of capital” have already decided, FOR US REGULAR PEOPLE, that there are going to be LESS jobs available in the NEAR future, due to
increased automation and modern corporate labor, cost-cutting, strategies. These measures eventually will affect and include ALL contract work, ALL
self-employment opportunities and ALL small businesses, NOT JUST payroll laborers. Its easier to “pay less” or “nothing at all” to contracted
or indentured “labor” when there is another willing laborer/slave, waiting in the wings, to do the work for less or nothing at all. In the past
when there wasn’t enough money to go around to pay both wages & PROFITS, the “owners of capital” simply brought in more indentured servant
immigrants (Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc) or flat out used slave labor (Blacks, Native Americans, domestic prisoners, POW’s, etc). The only
difference between now and then is the “owners of capital” can’t LEGALLY have slaves or indentured servants. The mechanisms today that replaces
slaves and indentured servants are the following: longer than needed formal education for basic employment, off-shoring of labor, forced retirement,
prisoners and welfare

The largest “recorded” wage increase to happen in history, for non-land owing, wage-laborers, post the introduction of fiat currency, was after
the black death pandemic, in the 14th century, especially in post-pandemic England

But, how was that possible?

Because “the owners of capital”, post the black-death-pandemic, still needed wage-laborers, but there was a HUGE shortage of able bodied people.
So, in order for ANY work to get done, they had to pay the peasants and other undesirables, more money, SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. This principle is still at
work today, when you take the time to recognize that sizable portions of the population are actively discouraged from participating in the full-time
labor market. This is easily done, by throwing people in prison, forcing them to attend formal school longer and allowing more people to claim
themselves as disabled or collect long/short term welfare

After the Black Death ran its course, in the 14th century, a Peasants Revolt was triggered by the "Statute of Labourers 1351". By 1381, the sustained
wage growth for non-land owing, wage-laborers was rising so quickly that the English parliament, a few decades post the Black-Death, under King Edward
III, introduced the "Statute of Labourers 1351". This statute was used by the "Owners of Capital", as an artificial means to drive down the wages of
non-land owning peasants. Despite market conditions signalling the need for increased wages

Think about that for a minute, the MARKET signaled that wages should have been higher, due to actual labor shortages caused by the Black Death, but
the “owners of capital” still didn't want to pay it, so they wrote a law saying why they didn't have to conform to demands of the market. That's
where we are today, a form of Neo-feudalism, driven by Fascist ideology and practices. Remember the USA a former "slave owning nation", that fought
"tooth & nail" to maintain the legal right to own slaves; even turning indentured servants, whom by contract, were set to be released in 7 years, into
indefinite slaves through legal loopholes

originally posted by: ketsuko
I've got news for you - Both sides of the aisle support this even if they do so for slightly different reasons.

Well, good point, but it's not news... obviously critters on both sides support this, and there are critters on both sides that don't -- as indicated
in my OP. I did not point it out in partisan terms; but the names and parties were cited, as well as their position.

In short, they more or less ALL back this.

The majority does, obviously, or it would have changed a long time ago. But not all. And a majority of critters does not automatically make right.
It's wrong no matter who supports it and needs to change.

Thank you for that thoughtful and informative post. You're right. The shift in economic power of the late 14th century is an example of natural law
in action... and the lengths the PTB -- of any era -- will go to subjugate and oppress and deny a fair wage to their laborer -- but take all they can
get under color of law.

The majority does, obviously, or it would have changed a long time ago. But not all. And a majority of critters does not automatically make right.
It's wrong no matter who supports it and needs to change.

Agreed. Now the big question: how do we?

With our votes? Yes, as much as we can.
With our $ and where we spend it? Yes, as much as we can.
But can I personally stop Infosys and all the others? Only way is to get everybody talking about it. Maybe then.

I almost feel guilty when I speak against the United States. After all as a kid growing up, it seemed to be the light of the world in the dark times
of the cold war.

Some deeply malevolent force has taken over behind the shadow of your presidents though and the capitalist dream of freedom is descending into a new
nightmare of bloodshed, tyranny and enslavement of people around the globe.

With our votes? Yes, as much as we can.
With our $ and where we spend it? Yes, as much as we can.
But can I personally stop Infosys and all the others? Only way is to get everybody talking about it. Maybe then.

All of the above... and American workers taking a stand, both for their own best personal interests and the best interests of us all; like the
SunTrust employees:

I almost feel guilty when I speak against the United States. After all as a kid growing up, it seemed to be the light of the world in the dark times
of the cold war.

Some deeply malevolent force has taken over behind the shadow of your presidents though and the capitalist dream of freedom is descending into a new
nightmare of bloodshed, tyranny and enslavement of people around the globe.

I know the feeling... but I would feel even guiltier if I didn't call out the bad behavior -- that "deeply malevolent force" as you so eloquently
called it -- that is destroying the foundational principles of "the American Way" or "the American Spirit" (or however one wants to look at it) that
once made this country great.

And as you mentioned, our dear leaders have spread their brand of tyranny across the world, so it's probably fair to say other people are looking at
what's been wrought in their countries, and want to return to principles and ideals that once made them great.

We have a lot of work to do... or should that be undo???
We can do better. Again. But that means looking the problems square in the eye and determining to do better. Let's hope it's not too late.

We had something similar to this when I worked in a corporate setting, it was handled by 2 or 3 people, but it is now 1 job as times change. I was
part of a small team that handled things like this as part of being Special Projects Manager. The job I had paid about 40k in 2001 and I did about 10
other things on top of that.

edit on 22-10-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)

NOT an easy job. Especially if the company is adopting new technologies to go with this.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.